Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Quote of the Day: "I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fitter evidence and every kind"

"Thousands and tens of thousands have gone through the evidence which attests the resurrection of Christ, piece by piece, as carefully as ever a judge summed up on the most important case. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others, but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fitter evidence and every kind." -- Thomas Arnold.

There is only one fact which the Christian need affirm and the unbeliever need deny: the resurrection of Christ. Everything else is commentary.

The atheist, the skeptic, the agnostic, and the religious believer of another persuasion who denies the resurrection of Christ puts him or herself on the wrong side of history, redeemed humanity, and hope.

Modern day defenders of the historicity of the resurrection include Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, and William Lane Craig.

We commemorate the resurrection every Sunday. We live our lives in its shadow, or, better put, in its light. We contemplate reality through the lens of the resurrection, and it affects our understanding of everything -- life, suffering, death, meaning, purpose, goodness, evil, destiny, and God's power, goodness, and wisdom.

“The atheist, the skeptic, the agnostic, and the religious believer of another persuasion who denies the resurrection of Christ puts him or herself on the wrong side of history, redeemed humanity, and hope.”

Then I guess you know which side to put me on. Every single shred of evidence of the resurrection of Christ comes from a single book, with references only to itself. 10,000 people attesting that the Ring was unmade in Mount Doom do not make the existence of Hobbits historical fact. The fact the movie (or gospel of John) repeats the story of the original book (gospel of Mark) my be better explained by the fact it was based on the original, but tarted up for a different audience/media. Regardless, the plural of “anecdote” is not “evidence”.